If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

AnnouncementAnnouncement Module

Collapse

No announcement yet.

Roe v. Wade Is More Popular Than Ever. A Fact the Supreme Court Is Unlikely to Ignore.

Roe v. Wade Is More Popular Than Ever. A Fact the Supreme Court Is Unlikely to Ignore.

On this fortieth anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in the abortion case, Roe v. Wade, a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 70 percent of U.S. adults support the decision, compared to 58 percent in 1989. That marks an all-time high. 2012 saw a huge number of abortion restrictions passed through state legislatures (though significantly less than 2011). But the feminist movement

mauser wrote:Newbie: If women would stop murdering their children, then those who understand that it is murder would shut up about it.

Until then....shut the **************** up yourself.

Classic!

**************************** believes in the "Right to Life"---but only for the unborn.

That "Right to Life" for 1st graders doesn't exist for him--HIS "right" to keep any kind of firearm, without any restriction, check, background check, and his "right" to carry it wherever he wants is more important to him than the RIGHT TO LIFE of children who HAVE been born!

He's said it again and again and again. He doesn't give a flying **************** about murdered school children, only about "murdered" fetuses.

Comment

Another: If you disagree that the unborn is human life with rights that should be protected, then we can disagree about that.....but lets not make the leap and claim that we're wanting to "tread" on women.

That's nothing more than hyperbolic nonsense.

Comment

mauser wrote:Another: If you disagree that the unborn is human life with rights that should be protected, then we can disagree about that.....but lets not make the leap and claim that we're wanting to "tread" on women.

That's nothing more than hyperbolic nonsense.

Yes, guido is right when he says we're all pro-choice. Nobody thinks a woman should be forced to have a child.

Why, I even think rape and incest should be illegal, and punished severely.

Comment

Markoh: no, the law us not about forcing people to do things with their own bodies against their will. It has never been about that. THAT'S the nightmare philosophy. And yes, it IS about absolute value because a STARK line is drawn regarding viability and the unique relationship I spoke of. There's no slippery slope there. No other place to go. That relationship exists nowhere else in nature.

Comment

Asking the government???? Nonsense. It's about having an individual right to do with your own body as you choose. It's about the government staying OUT of it. Not of asking them to do anything for you.

Comment

guido61 wrote:Asking the government???? Nonsense. It's about having an individual right to do with your own body as you choose. It's about the government staying OUT of it. Not of asking them to do anything for you.

No, abortions are rarely self-administered. It is very much a public policy issue. Aren't you the guy calling for intellectual integrity here? You blow off intellect as well as morality, we've definitely got nothing left.

And one last time on law and government (dang, I'm patient!) - what would law be about, if not what one does with one's body? Are thoughts illegal? No, it's actions, and actions are done by one's body. Law is a matter of telling a person what they must or must not do, and you do with your body. I think this is part of being a lib, not thinking about what the essential purpose of law and government really is.

Markoh: of course they aren't self administered. That's irrelevant. It's a private procedure. It's not the government forcing anyone to do anything. It's YOU who wants to have the government force a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will. You're completely turning the argument around backwards so you can continue to have one

Yes. Lets be intellectually honest here. Laws are not about what one can do with and to their own body. You're twisting and stretching your argument further and further

We agree as to what an unviable fetus is. We disagree as to what authority the mother has over it. You want the government to tell her what she can and cannot do regarding it. I do not. You think it's immoral to allow her to have that control. I do not. Well never convince the other to shift their position on the morality. As far as which position wins legally? If you are honest about your moral absolute position you lose by a HUGE margin.

Comment

guido61 wrote:... Laws are not about what one can do with and to their own body.

Yeah, and you also know you're being intellectually dishonest in that the fetus is not her own body. Standard talking point stuff here, always and forever. So you won't admit the broad principle of law and you fudge your particular instance. As Click and Clack would say, "boooo-oooo-oooo-ooo-gus!"

You want the government to tell her what she can and cannot do regarding it.

Well, actually, I didn't say what the government should do. I specifically said I was focusing on the moral question. (And, yes, I said up front that would be impossible to do on here)